SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Charlene Jones, pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, upholding the denial of appellant’s application for supplemental security income (“SSI”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We review de novo a district court’s judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Jasinski v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 182, 184 (2d Cir. 2003). In reviewing the denial of SSI benefits by the Commissioner, we conduct a plenary review of the administrative record, see Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 500-01 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[O]ur focus is not so much on the district court’s ruling as it is on the administrative ruling.”). We may not set aside the Commissioner’s decision unless the factual findings are unsupported by substantial evidence, or incorrect legal standards were applied. See, e.g., Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 127-28 (2d Cir. 2008). A determination is supported by substantial evidence if the record contains “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971)(internal quotation marks omitted).

Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the district court’s order for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned memorandum and order.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.